Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Though an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners wherein it was pointed out that the video cassette of the sting operation contains recording of all the 82 officials of Sales Tax Department accepting bribe from the bribe givers in their office without any fear and hesitation. The sting operation was shot by Shri Jalal Kathuriya, Cameraman by Spy Camera in A-S-F format. After that,, the recording was transferred in a digital shape. The produced video cassette was prepared from the digital storage in the Video Room which was absolutely unedited and nothing had been added or deleted/altered/added in the cassette. All the gadgets instruments used in the sting operation „Ghoos Mahal‟ have been re-used and as such news channels do not have any record of the sting operation except the video cassette which is the true copy of the sting operation prepared by the above-said mechanical devise. The video cassette was sent to the CFSL for voice comparison which gave positive results.

27. In the impugned order the Tribunal further observed that the two sting operations which were carried out by the TV news channel Aaj Tak on 08.03.2005 and 04.05.2005 and the news was telecast on the same day when the sting operations were carried out. It is, however, of importance to note that while the orders dismissing the employees of Trade and Tax Department were passed on 08.09.2006 and the appeals filed by them was dismissed on 23.11.2007; with respect to the sting operations pertaining to Tihar Jail the same was carried out on 04.05.2005 and the telecast was done on the same day. The employees were suspended and criminal cases registered against them on the next day itself. They were dismissed from service on 29.09.2005 and their appeals were dismissed on 02.02.2006. In these circumstances the Tribunal has observed that it was not a case of any emergent situation and sufficient time had lapsed which would have enabled the disciplinary authority to hold an enquiry in this matter.

"In OA No.265/2006 in the matter of Krishan Kumar V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others, a misc. application bearing MA No.2317/2006 came to be filed during pendency of the OA. The prayer in the misc. application is to permit the applicant to place on records additional affidavit. In the additional affidavit it has inter alia been pleaded that the same news channel had carried out a sting operation in respect of some officials of Delhi Police. In that connection SI (Exe.) Sobhen Barik was chargesheeted on 14.07.2005. He had made demand of Rs. 50,000/- and the incident of demanding money was recorded by the channel Aaj Tak, which was so mentioned in the chargesheet issued against him. It is further mentioned in the chargesheet issued against him. It is further mentioned that the charge against the SI was not only of asking for money but also of running from the camera after he realized that the conversation was being recorded. It was subsequently telecast by the TV channel and watched by public. Even though, the incident of demanding and accepting bribe was of 03.11.2004, SI Sobhen Barik was chargesheeted on 14.07.2005, far before at least the employees of the Trade & Taxes department were dismissed from service, and far before the appeals of the employees of the jail department were dismissed. The disciplinary or the appellate authority knew or were at least supposed to know that by the time they passed their respective orders, an employee of the police department was being proceeded departmentally on the allegations which could be proved only by those who carried out the sting operation and who were from the same TV channel Aaj Tak only. It is then pleaded n the additional affidavit that the correspondent who conducted the sting operation was Shri Dhirender Pundir, and his name was listed in the list of witnesses dated 14.07.2005 as PW-10. On 07.11.2005, Shri Pundir appeared and deposed in the departmental enquiry."
"In our opinion, it is reasonably practicable to conduct the departmental enquiry in the present case of sting operation. The department could have proved the charge against the respondent by examining the witnesses from NDTV who carried out the sting operation. We are further of the view that conducting of the departmental enquiry in sting operation is all the more necessary in order to rule out the possibility of any motivated action in sting operation. Whether such a sting operation was genuine or not has to be proved by cogent evidence and for this, it is not difficult to produce the material witnesses."